I read this article in the Billings Gazette this morning about the possiblity of selling of public lands to generate revenue. I personally don't like this idea at all. I could understand selling off some very isolated segments that are indeed hard to manage, but at what cost?
http://www.billingsgazette.net/articles/20...30-bush-blm.txt
Take a look at the article and formulate your own opionions.
Full Version: Sellling off BLM and FS Land
Here is a link with the list of the forest service parcels that are under consideration.
They have some sample maps of some of the areas on there already.
Also, all the parcels are listed by size in acres to give you an idea of what sort of holdings these are.
We should know more at the end of the month as to what is going on (choice of parcels etc)
http://www.fs.fed.us/land/staff/rural_schools.shtml
They have some sample maps of some of the areas on there already.
Also, all the parcels are listed by size in acres to give you an idea of what sort of holdings these are.
We should know more at the end of the month as to what is going on (choice of parcels etc)
http://www.fs.fed.us/land/staff/rural_schools.shtml
I just mapped out the proposed sales in my area,[north end of the kootenai national forest]just under 5000 acres.Lets see a couple of really nice lake front lots,a big chunk of river frontage just south of place,my old elk hunting spot over the hill from my parents place.no big deal!!
SELL IT ALL.EVERYTHING GOES FIRE SALE
OUR KIDS HERITAGE TO THE HIGHEST BIDDER.GET YOUR PIECE NOW BEFORE THE RUSH STARTS.
YEAH I'M A LITTLE PEEEVED.I CAN THINK OF A COUPLE OF CREATIVE FINANCING SOLUTIONS FOR THE FEDS BUT THEY WOULD NEVER GO FOR THEM.THEY INVOLVE CUTTING SOME EXPENSES IN SOME OVER FUNDED AREAS.[POLITICAL RETIREMENT ACCOUNTS]
LOOKS LIKE A BIG CHUNK IS BETWEEN LIBBY AND TROY ALONG THE KOOTENAI RIVER.
SELL IT ALL.EVERYTHING GOES FIRE SALE
OUR KIDS HERITAGE TO THE HIGHEST BIDDER.GET YOUR PIECE NOW BEFORE THE RUSH STARTS.
YEAH I'M A LITTLE PEEEVED.I CAN THINK OF A COUPLE OF CREATIVE FINANCING SOLUTIONS FOR THE FEDS BUT THEY WOULD NEVER GO FOR THEM.THEY INVOLVE CUTTING SOME EXPENSES IN SOME OVER FUNDED AREAS.[POLITICAL RETIREMENT ACCOUNTS]
LOOKS LIKE A BIG CHUNK IS BETWEEN LIBBY AND TROY ALONG THE KOOTENAI RIVER.
Just a few more links to articles concerning this from the Feb 12th Casper Star Tribune.
I figured I would add them so people can keep tabs on what is going on with the possible sale.
Cubin: No evidence she signed as co-sponsor
Feds aim to sell land
I figured I would add them so people can keep tabs on what is going on with the possible sale.
Cubin: No evidence she signed as co-sponsor
Feds aim to sell land
After reading some of the documents, I still have an overall negative feel against this plan. As Wyldgene pointed out on another site, this sort of thing is standard practice and not necessarily a new thing.
I can certainly see selling off small parcels that are surrounded by private property. Those properties are indeed very difficult to manage. On the other hand, property that has a boundary against a big river is a whole different deal.
My main preference would be to swap parcels rather than sell any public land
I can certainly see selling off small parcels that are surrounded by private property. Those properties are indeed very difficult to manage. On the other hand, property that has a boundary against a big river is a whole different deal.
My main preference would be to swap parcels rather than sell any public land
Ugh. Another land grab. Looks like the Hoback river is also in their sights:
http://www.denverpost.com/nationworld/ci_3485264
http://bozemandailychronicle.com/articles/...shlandsales.txt
http://www.denverpost.com/nationworld/ci_3485264
QUOTE
resident Bush wants to sell more public land across the West to raise money for schools, conservation and deficit reduction.
Bush's proposed 2007 federal budget, sent to Congress on Monday, calls for granting the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management new authority to sell off land. Those agencies together control hundreds of millions of acres in Western states.
Democrats and environmentalists compare the idea to recent proposals by Tom Tancredo and other Republicans in Congress to sell federal land to pay for hurricane relief and invigorate the mining industry.
Dave Alberswerth of the Wilderness Society dubbed the new sell-off proposal "a billion-dollar privatization program."
Bush's proposed 2007 federal budget, sent to Congress on Monday, calls for granting the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management new authority to sell off land. Those agencies together control hundreds of millions of acres in Western states.
Democrats and environmentalists compare the idea to recent proposals by Tom Tancredo and other Republicans in Congress to sell federal land to pay for hurricane relief and invigorate the mining industry.
Dave Alberswerth of the Wilderness Society dubbed the new sell-off proposal "a billion-dollar privatization program."
http://bozemandailychronicle.com/articles/...shlandsales.txt
QUOTE
It's a damn poor way to run a ranch and it's a way worse way to run a government," Schweitzer, a third-generation farmer, said Friday in a telephone interview.
President Bush wants the land sales to generate about $800 million, which would be granted to states and counties affected by the loss of U.S. Forest Service payments.
The Forest Service has traditionally given part of its timber receipts to local governments for schools. The amount of money has decreased as logging has declined.
The whole idea of selling land -- a permanent asset -- to generate cash "to meet this or that budgetary goal" is a bad idea, said d*** Dolan, of the Greater Yellowstone Coalition.
The potential impacts on forests in the Yellowstone National Park area appear to be comparatively small, he said, but the whole concept sets a bad precedent.
President Bush wants the land sales to generate about $800 million, which would be granted to states and counties affected by the loss of U.S. Forest Service payments.
The Forest Service has traditionally given part of its timber receipts to local governments for schools. The amount of money has decreased as logging has declined.
The whole idea of selling land -- a permanent asset -- to generate cash "to meet this or that budgetary goal" is a bad idea, said d*** Dolan, of the Greater Yellowstone Coalition.
The potential impacts on forests in the Yellowstone National Park area appear to be comparatively small, he said, but the whole concept sets a bad precedent.
Nice quotes Tuco.
...selected quote, from selected quotes, from selected quotes...
Believe it or not, it would be much more productive if a lot more people read the Proposal, considered what it actually says, & send clear, concise comments to the USFS when the comment period opens...
The "I don't like it cause my neighbor told me he heard from somebody, who somebody else told, who heard from somebody how happens to know a guy who said he was listening @ a table in diner, about it from a guy who's on a bulliten board, where somebody quoted somebody who was quoted by the newspaper, who just happen to print that quote, cause it more in line in w/ what they wanna print, instead of a half doz. other quotes that didn't fit their agenda" doesn't cut much ice anymore, say w/ the protest form letters. Put some reasoned thought into it, @ least. Don't worry, there always be more than enough parrots in sheeps' clothing to go around...
Believe it or not, it would be much more productive if a lot more people read the Proposal, considered what it actually says, & send clear, concise comments to the USFS when the comment period opens...
The "I don't like it cause my neighbor told me he heard from somebody, who somebody else told, who heard from somebody how happens to know a guy who said he was listening @ a table in diner, about it from a guy who's on a bulliten board, where somebody quoted somebody who was quoted by the newspaper, who just happen to print that quote, cause it more in line in w/ what they wanna print, instead of a half doz. other quotes that didn't fit their agenda" doesn't cut much ice anymore, say w/ the protest form letters. Put some reasoned thought into it, @ least. Don't worry, there always be more than enough parrots in sheeps' clothing to go around...
QUOTE (wyldgene @ Feb 13 2006, 08:30 AM) 
...selected quote, from selected quotes, from selected quotes...
Believe it or not, it would be much more productive if a lot more people read the Proposal, considered what it actually says, & send clear, concise comments to the USFS when the comment period opens...
The "I don't like it cause my neighbor told me he heard from somebody, who somebody else told, who heard from somebody how happens to know a guy who said he was listening @ a table in diner, about it from a guy who's on a bulliten board, where somebody quoted somebody who was quoted by the newspaper, who just happen to print that quote, cause it more in line in w/ what they wanna print, instead of a half doz. other quotes that didn't fit their agenda" doesn't cut much ice anymore, say w/ the protest form letters. Put some reasoned thought into it, @ least. Don't worry, there always be more than enough parrots in sheeps' clothing to go around...
Believe it or not, it would be much more productive if a lot more people read the Proposal, considered what it actually says, & send clear, concise comments to the USFS when the comment period opens...
The "I don't like it cause my neighbor told me he heard from somebody, who somebody else told, who heard from somebody how happens to know a guy who said he was listening @ a table in diner, about it from a guy who's on a bulliten board, where somebody quoted somebody who was quoted by the newspaper, who just happen to print that quote, cause it more in line in w/ what they wanna print, instead of a half doz. other quotes that didn't fit their agenda" doesn't cut much ice anymore, say w/ the protest form letters. Put some reasoned thought into it, @ least. Don't worry, there always be more than enough parrots in sheeps' clothing to go around...
They anticipate having it posted around Feb 28th. As of now, there is no proposal to read. By letting the cat out of the bag BEFORE there is something in writing the govt. has brought on the speculation and voicing of concerns themselves.
Personally, I have reserved any comment of my own as I await the posting of the document.
Given the recent track record of attempts to undermine public lands in congress and elsewhere in the administration I can see why people would be concerned and honestly, their comments have merit and voice concern that is founded upon the historical performances delivered by government entities in the last few years.
I have not yet read the proposal, but I just can't see where selling a permanent asset (land) to help fund schools, government or deficit is a good thing. There are plenty of other options to raise funds, and $1B is nothing for the govt to raise. Losing valuable land (we aren't exactly talking about land in Siberia here) to public access is never good.
My biggest concern is that everyone is going to get caught up in the rhetoric that it's all gotta be "this way" or "that way" it becomes impossible to do it the "right way". Some of these parcels are "white elephants", some are public treasures. Each parcel needs to be appraised seperately, values including intangibles considered, options, such as trades investigated, public comment required, before & if it is made available for sale. The "All Or None" crowds are gonna screw us worse than a simple increase in an ongoing program...
Most of these parcels have been considered "excess" for a reason, we need to make sure, it's a good reason, based upon a "best value" that isn't greed & be willing to make informed decisions. Giving away our part in the decision process is not in our best interests... If the "value" of retaining a parcel offsets the receipts, we need to make sure it remains in public trust...
Most of these parcels have been considered "excess" for a reason, we need to make sure, it's a good reason, based upon a "best value" that isn't greed & be willing to make informed decisions. Giving away our part in the decision process is not in our best interests... If the "value" of retaining a parcel offsets the receipts, we need to make sure it remains in public trust...
I agree - we obviosuly can't lump all parcels into one category or another - but I think that the government will.
Some more articles for those interested. The Montana article identifies a parcel that I would indeed object being put up as a parcel for sale:
Bozeman Daily Chronicle
Schweitzer blasts Bush's public land sale proposal
Casper Star Tribune
Forest Service says it may sell more than 5,000 acres in Utah
Denver Post
Feds may sell public lands to aid schools
Albuquerque Tribune
Forest land sale planned
Gene, I agree that we will need to scrutinize every parcel proposed, IF this even gets through congress. They may shoot the entire thing down anyway.
Bozeman Daily Chronicle
Schweitzer blasts Bush's public land sale proposal
Casper Star Tribune
Forest Service says it may sell more than 5,000 acres in Utah
Denver Post
Feds may sell public lands to aid schools
Albuquerque Tribune
Forest land sale planned
Gene, I agree that we will need to scrutinize every parcel proposed, IF this even gets through congress. They may shoot the entire thing down anyway.
Now this is where it could get scary, Sam. I don't believe Congressional approval is actually required for sale of these parcels, while the Bill is for disposition of funds. The sale of "excess" lands is already covered in established directives, & it is feasible that Congress could get royally back-doored here...
Any way that things work out, public comment before the sale is critical, along w/ appraisals & "sale by parcel"... Those are the issues that need to be put in front of the USFS... The USFS needs to hear that we won't abide wholesale dispersal of public lands, or sales w/o discussion of the alternatives...
Any way that things work out, public comment before the sale is critical, along w/ appraisals & "sale by parcel"... Those are the issues that need to be put in front of the USFS... The USFS needs to hear that we won't abide wholesale dispersal of public lands, or sales w/o discussion of the alternatives...
As usual Gene I am going to have to disagree. Selling public land is a bad idea period. I don't want to get off topic, but if we can afford to spend $100,000 a minute on other things, why can't we afford to keep our public land?
This sets a bad precedent and says that privatizing public land is "ok". It's not ok. Especially frightening is the fact that Terry L. Anderson is just fine and dandy with this plan. Some of you may know him as the main gurue behind getting rid of *all* public land. He has also advocated turning Yellowstone into a condo resort.
This country can afford to keep it's public lands. But the people running things and some of their friends want all those lands gone.
The USFS and Department of the interior have paid no heed to public comments the last six years. In fact, they tried to end that service several times.
This sets a bad precedent and says that privatizing public land is "ok". It's not ok. Especially frightening is the fact that Terry L. Anderson is just fine and dandy with this plan. Some of you may know him as the main gurue behind getting rid of *all* public land. He has also advocated turning Yellowstone into a condo resort.
This country can afford to keep it's public lands. But the people running things and some of their friends want all those lands gone.
QUOTE
Any way that things work out, public comment before the sale is critical, along w/ appraisals & "sale by parcel"... Those are the issues that need to be put in front of the USFS... The USFS needs to hear that we won't abide wholesale dispersal of public lands, or sales w/o discussion of the alternatives...
The USFS and Department of the interior have paid no heed to public comments the last six years. In fact, they tried to end that service several times.
5, buying, selling, & trading of public lands is not a new thing. The USFS has been doing it since it's inception. Selling off parcels wholesale to raise revenues is not a new concept, but has never managed to get anywhere, @ least not in the last 50 yrs. You're a great one for quoting "Status quo", which this is, unless they try to change the rules. When they do that, I'll be one of the first ones in line to file suit against the sale of anything. I realize that you know lots more about public lands than I do, but there are some parcels that the public interest would be better served by disposing of them. The real challenge is to make sure they don't sell the wrong ones for the wrong reasons...
QUOTE (wyldgene @ Feb 13 2006, 01:59 PM)
Now this is where it could get scary, Sam. I don't believe Congressional approval is actually required for sale of these parcels, while the Bill is for disposition of funds. The sale of "excess" lands is already covered in established directives, & it is feasible that Congress could get royally back-doored here...
The budget must be approved by Congress before the land sales could take place. If congress shoots this land stuff down then its a moot point as it is attached to the budget. That is the way I am understanding it at least.
We will know where all this is going by the end of the month. The publicity will at least get people thinking and hopefully get them to look at the parcels when they see the maps, proposal, etc. and object to those that are not being properly valued.
QUOTE (wyldgene @ Feb 13 2006, 09:14 PM)
5, buying, selling, & trading of public lands is not a new thing. The USFS has been doing it since it's inception. Selling off parcels wholesale to raise revenues is not a new concept, but has never managed to get anywhere, @ least not in the last 50 yrs. You're a great one for quoting "Status quo", which this is, unless they try to change the rules. When they do that, I'll be one of the first ones in line to file suit against the sale of anything. I realize that you know lots more about public lands than I do, but there are some parcels that the public interest would be better served by disposing of them. The real challenge is to make sure they don't sell the wrong ones for the wrong reasons...
You probably know I am against selling any national forest land or BLM land. I come from a state that seriously lacks public land, and quite frankly the quality of the hunting and fishing is terrible. There is a direct correlation.
You also brought up swapping land, which I have no problem with as long as it's done carefully (which you have talked about). But that's a huge difference from actually getting rid of public land entirely.
We are talking 30,000 acres of our hunting and fishing lands in just Montana and Wyoming alone. That could have quite a bit of impact in terms of loss of access to local families, being locked out of rivers, remote lakes and hunting patches. Real honest to goodness lockouts- not imaginary lockouts as was the case with the Roadless Initiative. Not only that, but this sets a precedent that anytime government leaders create huge deficits that it's ok to sell off our public lands to make up for their fiscal incompetence. Bad. Very bad. Where does it stop? It sure won't stop at 300,000.
Here is the break down on the acreage and states:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/115...ale_glance.html
State Total
Ala. 3,220
Alaska 99
Ariz. 1,030
Ark. 3,612
Calif. 85,465
Colo. 21,572
Fla. 973
Ga. 4,522
Idaho 26,194
Ill. 191
Ky. 4,518
La. 3,895
Mich. 5,880
Minn. 2,622
Miss. 7,503
Mo. 21,566
Mont. 13,948
Neb. 360
Nev. 2,782
N.M. 7,447
N.C. 9,828
Ohio 420
Okla. 3,572
Ore. 10,581
S.C. 4,665
S.D. 13,961
Tenn. 2,996
Texas 4,813
Utah 5,398
Va. 5,717
Wash. 7,516
W.Va. 4,836
Wis. 80
Wyo. 17,659
Nation 309,441
85,000 acres in CA is a lot. With the value of land in CA that seems rediculous.
I just wanted to extend my thanks to everyone for not getting to partisan with the comments. I think the best way to solve these issues is to move past the rhetoric and work together to solve the solution at hand.
I also have a very nasty bout of the flu and it warms my heart to realize that I don't need to lock this thread.![emthup[1].gif](http://rockymtnfly.com/forums/style_emoticons/default/emthup[1].gif)
I also have a very nasty bout of the flu and it warms my heart to realize that I don't need to lock this thread.
Hope you're feeling better Paul.
I'm glad to see that this issue hasn't raised the hackles on both sides on this board the way it has on others.
I hope everyone will keep contributing any new developments they run across and keep it civil.
Here in my home town I am really surprised at how many people haven't heard about this yet and some don't understand the scope of it until you show them the proposed sales areas on a map.Then it hits home that HEY!! I FISH THERE OR HEY !!THATS WHERE I HUNT AT or even I didn't know that was Forest Service property.
Let's keep an eye on this and make our opinions heard.If the property is truly useless for recreation,habitat or so totally land locked that the cost of gaining access is greater than the gain for the public. I can see some of these parcels being desirable to put on the market but as far as all the money going to education if this is intended to replace PILT [payment in lieu of taxes] PILT was paid to the county and then the county disbursed the money with [don't quote me on this] if I remember right between 60\70% going for roads maintainance and 30\40% to education.
I'm glad to see that this issue hasn't raised the hackles on both sides on this board the way it has on others.
I hope everyone will keep contributing any new developments they run across and keep it civil.
Here in my home town I am really surprised at how many people haven't heard about this yet and some don't understand the scope of it until you show them the proposed sales areas on a map.Then it hits home that HEY!! I FISH THERE OR HEY !!THATS WHERE I HUNT AT or even I didn't know that was Forest Service property.
Let's keep an eye on this and make our opinions heard.If the property is truly useless for recreation,habitat or so totally land locked that the cost of gaining access is greater than the gain for the public. I can see some of these parcels being desirable to put on the market but as far as all the money going to education if this is intended to replace PILT [payment in lieu of taxes] PILT was paid to the county and then the county disbursed the money with [don't quote me on this] if I remember right between 60\70% going for roads maintainance and 30\40% to education.
I'm afraid it has just gotten much worse :(
At the same time we hear the feds "crying wolf" over how we desperately need to sell these federal for money, the feds are now going to waive SEVEN BILLION in gas/oil royalties on FEDERAL LANDS. That's right. This is not a typo. Truly one of the most disguting things I have seen since I have been following public lands issues. The White House's plan(and it is their plan, by the way. No sense in having this dicussion if we are going to gloss over specifics) to sell your national forest and BLM land will supposedly earn around 1 billion$ by selling 300,000 acres. Yet they are going to waive SEVEN BILLION of gas/oil royalties from those same federal lands?
You been hoodwinked, boondozzled, scammed and played for suckers. We all have. It seems the real goal is just to open up a loophole that gets rid of public land.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060214/ts_nm/...lties_report_dc
It's pretty obvious what the right thing to do is. Call and mail your representatives and the White House. Demand they use the gas royalties for local communites and demand they do not sell off our national forest land. Ridiculous. *rant over*.
At the same time we hear the feds "crying wolf" over how we desperately need to sell these federal for money, the feds are now going to waive SEVEN BILLION in gas/oil royalties on FEDERAL LANDS. That's right. This is not a typo. Truly one of the most disguting things I have seen since I have been following public lands issues. The White House's plan(and it is their plan, by the way. No sense in having this dicussion if we are going to gloss over specifics) to sell your national forest and BLM land will supposedly earn around 1 billion$ by selling 300,000 acres. Yet they are going to waive SEVEN BILLION of gas/oil royalties from those same federal lands?
You been hoodwinked, boondozzled, scammed and played for suckers. We all have. It seems the real goal is just to open up a loophole that gets rid of public land.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060214/ts_nm/...lties_report_dc
QUOTE
NEW YORK (Reuters) - The government may waive up to $7 billion in royalty payments from companies pumping oil and natural gas on federal territory in the next five years, the New York Times reported on Tuesday, citing administration officials and budget documents.
The royalty relief would amount to one of the biggest giveaways of oil and gas in U.S. history, even though the administration assumes oil prices will remain above $50 a barrel throughout that period, the Times report said.
The report cited estimates in the Interior Department's recent budget plan that would allow companies to pump about $65 billion in oil and natural gas without paying royalties.
The royalty relief would amount to one of the biggest giveaways of oil and gas in U.S. history, even though the administration assumes oil prices will remain above $50 a barrel throughout that period, the Times report said.
The report cited estimates in the Interior Department's recent budget plan that would allow companies to pump about $65 billion in oil and natural gas without paying royalties.
It's pretty obvious what the right thing to do is. Call and mail your representatives and the White House. Demand they use the gas royalties for local communites and demand they do not sell off our national forest land. Ridiculous. *rant over*.
As of today this is now effectively dead on both sides of capitol hill as its not in either the senate or house budget submissions.
Lawmakers dump land sale measures
Lawmakers dump land sale measures
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.